Higher Standards, Stronger Tests: Don't Shoot the Messenger

The tension between equity and excellence has caused some to
question the political stability and staying power of the standards
movement.

In the education reform debates of the
previous two decades, equity and excellence were too often viewed as
competing, perhaps even mutually exclusive, policy goals. Since the
mid-'90s, however, the movement to raise academic standards has emerged
as a promising vehicle to accomplish both goals. One reason the
standards movement has to date enjoyed broad public support is its
implicit claim that we do not have to choose between equity and
excellence, that our schools can significantly improve the achievement
of those whom they have served least well historically while at the
same time raising the bar for all. As new assessments and
accountability policies have begun to be implemented in several states,
the tension between these twin goals of the standards movement have
come to the surface, causing some to question the political stability
and staying power of this movement.

In Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia, to name three recent
examples, initial high failure rates on rigorous new state assessments,
especially in districts and schools serving large concentrations of
poor and minority students, have triggered attacks on the standards and
tests themselves, and called for deferral or elimination of
consequences based on the tests. In response, policymakers in these
states have proposed lowering the passing bar, at least in the first
year or two in which tests will count. These actions have in turn
precipitated a counterreaction from those who fear that such a move
signals a retreat from high standards and will sound the death knell
for the movement.

Is there a way to resolve such tensions? Are equity and excellence
in fact irreconcilable goals? Can this movement maintain its broad
public support as educators and students face much greater
accountability for performance? It was in the context of such questions
that the third National Education Summit took place last fall in
Palisades, N.Y.

The governors, corporate chief executives, and education leaders who
assembled began by reasserting their conviction that improving the
performance of our schools was the single most important long-term
challenge facing the nation, and that the standards movement represents
our best hope for meeting the challenge. What was especially heartening
was that there was no bashing of schools or teachers, and no naive
assertions that higher standards and tougher tests could by themselves
produce significant gains in student learning. The focus of the
discussion, and of the action statement adopted by the participants,
revolved principally around three questions:

•What will it take to recruit, prepare, support, and retain a
quality teaching force capable of teaching to much higher
student-learning standards?

•What will it take to ensure that all students, especially
those in predominantly low-income and minority schools, will be given
the extra help and support they need to meet higher standards?

•How can states best structure their accountability systems to
combine incentives for performance with interventions and consequences
for failure?

Throughout the summit, participants took the opportunity to describe
in some detail the strategies they were pursuing in their states to
strengthen the quality of teachers and teaching, and to provide
enriched and extended learning opportunities for students who were
furthest behind. While the tone of the discussions was generally
upbeat, there was a widespread understanding that we are in a race with
time, and that it will take a significantly stepped-up commitment from
leaders in all sectors if the twin goals of equity and excellence are
to be realized.

The Summit Action Statement outlined a set of policy steps state
leadership teams will pursue to address the key challenges, as well as
a set of sector-specific commitments that governors, corporate
executives, and education leaders made to support these policy
objectives.

Standards-setting and test development ultimately rest upon human
judgment and will therefore never be perfect.

To address teacher quality, the statement considers the arc of a
teaching career. It challenges universities to create stronger
teacher-preparation programs that provide educators with the content
knowledge and skills needed to help students meet higher academic
standards. It encourages states to create alternative pathways into the
teaching profession to attract the most talented candidates. It makes
professional development for teachers already in the classroom a top
priority, emphasizing the importance of tying such programs directly to
standards.

To that end, education leaders committed themselves to developing
salary agreements that give credit only for professional development
that is standards-based. Moreover, the statement supports the
development of different roles and responsibilities within the teaching
profession, and differential pay based on skills and performance.
Business leaders have committed to work with 10 states to help them
create pay-for-performance incentive plans that build upon lessons
learned from such programs in the private sector.

The action statement balances the need for states to provide
sufficient help and support for both teachers and students with the
need to establish a firm timetable for holding them accountable for
achievement. The challenge is to move forward aggressively on both
fronts. The statement calls for states to provide increased flexibility
and support for principals and teachers as they put in place
consequences for results. More importantly, it commits state leaders to
work together to ensure that every school has in place a rigorous
curriculum and professional-development program aligned with state
standards and tests, and it commits states to provide extra help and
learning time for students before holding them back or denying them
diplomas. (The full text of the Summit Action Statement, which also
includes specific recommendations for improving standards, assessments,
and accountability systems, is available on Achieve Inc.'s Web site,
www.achieve.org.)

The first test of these commitments will come in the quality of the
responses states prepare to the action statement, for each state
represented at the summit agreed to provide a detailed implementation
plan, with targets and time lines, by April 1.

But their pledge to address aggressively the major implementation
challenges while holding fast to the principle of accountability
represents a strategy for avoiding the false choice between equity and
excellence. The summit did not gloss over the fact that, in too many
states, there are very real problems with the rigor, depth, and scope
of student standards and the alignment of state tests with standards.
Our organization, Achieve, was created three years ago to help states
strengthen the quality of their standards and tests by benchmarking
them against those of other states and nations, and this strategy was
endorsed by the summit participants.

The critics who come out of the woodwork when passing rates on tests
are low or allegations of cheating rise would rather blame the
messenger than take on the shortcomings that standards and assessments
expose. Doing away with the tests or the consequences is the easy way
out—it allows us to avoid the hard work of improving instruction
and restructuring the use of time and resources so that all students
are given the time and support needed to meet standards.

Standards-setting and test development ultimately rest upon human
judgment and will therefore never be perfect. States can and must seek
to continually improve their expectations for students and schools and
sharpen their measuring systems to ensure that school reform efforts
are aimed in the right direction. While rigorous tests should be the
backbone of state accountability systems, common sense suggests that
states should not rely solely on the results of one-shot assessments,
but should also take into account other measures of student and school
performance.

The public still firmly supports efforts to raise education
standards, and education remains the top national priority. But
patience may be running thin. The concern of all who care about
improving America's schools, and about sustaining support for the
public education enterprise itself, should be on ensuring that all of
our students have access to well-prepared teachers, challenging
curricula, and extra time and help if they need it, not on debating the
strengths and shortcomings of tests.

We know from results from the 1998 National Assessment of
Educational Progress that states that have used higher standards to
drive a comprehensive reform agenda—states like Connecticut,
Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas—have seen
the greatest achievement gains over the decade. ("States Committed to Standards Reforms Reap
NAEP Gains," March 10, 1999.) We also know from the well-documented
reforms in New York City's Community District 2 that dramatic gains in
student achievement are possible in urban districts that establish
rigorous academic expectations and concentrate resources on
professional development and instructional improvement. If we focus on
those strategies that have the greatest likelihood of improving
teaching and learning for all students, as the summit participants
urged, and hold firm on high standards and accountability, the results
will take care of themselves.

Robert Schwartz and Matthew Gandal are, respectively, the
president and the director of standards and assessment at Achieve Inc.
in Cambridge, Mass. Achieve was the principal sponsor of the 1999
National Education Summit.

Robert Schwartz and Matthew Gandal are, respectively, the president and
the director of standards and assessment at Achieve Inc. in Cambridge,
Mass. Achieve was the principal sponsor of the 1999 National Education
Summit.

Vol. 19, Issue 19, Pages 40-41, 60

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.